Nagging at the back of my mind for the past two months were similarities between the rhetoric and slogans coming out of the “Occupy” camps and events from the not too distant past. Then it hit me, if you reduced the thinking of the “Occupy” “movement” to its essence, its rallying cry would be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Of course, THAT would be fair! Everyone would work to their ability and everyone would receive what they need. What a great philosophy – I wonder if anyone has actually tried to implement it?

Students of history will attribute popularization of that quote to Karl Marx from his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, but the idea was actually first penned by the French socialist Henri de Saint Simon when he created the rallying points for Occupy in 1840:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

As you might remember, when this slogan was put into practice, it produced less than satisfactory results. Today the Occupy “movement” focuses on what is “fair.” They want to borrow money and then only repay it if they think it is fair. They want to reallocate resources because it is not fair that more creative, harder workers make more money. They want public resources to be spread “more evenly” even though 40%+ of Americans receive more FROM the government than they contribute TO the government.

More than a century ago, well intentioned but delusional folks got together and decided that communism/socialism was an experiment worth trying. Only problem was it actually created an Orwellian Animal Farm in which all of the animals were created equally, just some a little more equal that others.

About Geoff Willis

68 Comments

OWS is trying to address the very REAL consequences of 30 years of “trickle down economics”, where american workers are WORKING harder and longer hours and are falling ever further behind and the people at the top are making ever bigger profits and salaries.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM, you right-wingers want to portray this movement as a bunch of lazy unemployed people who just want handouts rather than acknowledge that WORKING people, aka AVERAGE AMERICANS, aka the 99%, are struggling to survive in this economy. An economy where REAL WAGES have declined or remained stagnant while corporate america and a few private citizens are raking in RECORD PROFITS and RECORD SALARIES at the expense of our society as a whole.

Actually, the problem is you lefies trying to equate the Occupiers with average Americans, when the truth is there are about as far from the average American as possible. Don’t believe me, though; instead let’s look at what a Democratic pollster says – “Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.”

Of course you would ignore the fact that it was done at the original Occupy site, as well as the fact that it was done by a Democratic pollster (the fact that it happens to be posted in the WSJ of course has no relevance, so naturally you would seize on your Foxnews conspiracy). But I know that facts only matter when they support your side, so I’m hardly surprised.

anon

Posted October 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM

So it was done at the original site? So what? It’s still a pathetically small sample and not even close to being able to associate with the word “research”. Done by a Democratic pollster? So what? That’s supposed to give it some sort of special legitimacy?
It’s bullshit.

And I didn’t say that it was simply in the WSJ. I said it was in the WSJ opinion section. If you don’t think that the editorial board of the WSJ has a particular point of view when it comes to these issues, you’re more naive than I thought.

Newbie,
They say they’re out of the “norm”, but I don’t think REAL statistics bear that out. Let’s look at the following statistics from your article;

“Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.”

This is the norm in Europe, it’s called GETTING SOMETHING FOR YOUR TAX DOLLARS (besides weaponry). Are you saying that a majority of americans want to cut or eliminate Medicare and veterans benefits, pell grants and social security. Back that assertion up with some facts.
******
“By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor.”

Absolutely, most americans are struggling to just make ends meet, yet the wealthy are enjoying riches and a lifestyle not seen since the days of the robber barons.
From Bloomberg;
Poll: Americans Back Taxing Rich

By Mike Dorning

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) — More than two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, say wealthier people should pay more in taxes to bring down the budget deficit, and even larger numbers think Medicare and Social Security benefits should be left alone. More than 8 out of 10 Americans say the middle class will have to make financial sacrifices to cut the federal deficit even as the public just as strongly opposes higher taxes on middle-income families, according to a Bloomberg poll.

More than half of Republicans say wealthier Americans should pay more in taxes to bring down the federal budget deficit.
Fifty-three percent of self-identified Republicans back an increase in taxes on households making more than $250,000, a sentiment at odds with the party’s presidential candidates, who will meet tonight in a Bloomberg-Washington Post-sponsored debate focused on economic issues.
More than two-thirds of all Americans back higher taxes on the rich and even larger numbers think Medicare and Social Security benefits should be left alone, according to a Bloomberg-Washington Post national poll conducted Oct. 6-9.
More than 8 out of 10 Americans say the middle class will have to make financial sacrifices to cut the deficit even as the public strongly opposes higher taxes on middle-income families.
******
“And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).”

I just quoted a Democratic pollster who interviewed the original Occupiers and stated that the results of his interviews show that the Occupiers are not representative of the average American (his language, not mine). Again, facts only matter to you and anon when they can be spun to make your point.

Newbie,
Just because your pollster is a “democrat” doesn’t mean his CONCLUSIONS were correct, in fact I think the Bloomberg poll that I cited, showed that a majority of Americans do agree with the Occupiers.

So the norm in Europe is equal to the average American? Hopefully the riots in Greece by those unhappy with new autsterity measures in light of the country’s crushing debt, and in England by spoiled kids living off the public teat don’t become the norm here, though I suspect the Occupy crowd is hoping they will.

Typical liberal bait and switch Anonster. The Bloomberg poll is irrelevant to whether the Occupiers represent the average American because the Bloomberg poll didn’t interview Occupiers. If you bothered to read the article (sorry, I was channeling anon and Anonster), you would know that Schoen did interview actual Occupiers. And he found that there views were largely out of the mainstream from the average American (you must have missed the poll today that showed that support for Obamacare is at its lowest level). So, again, your fleeting attempts to discredit the actual facts (to the point where you will discount the fact that a Democratic pollster conducted the poll – I guess I can simply ignore all of your Foxnews and other conservative conspiracies when I post links in the future since you don’t care about the source when it’s convenient for your argument) fails miserably.

anon

Posted October 28, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Once again…and maybe this time it will sink in…interviewing only 200 people from a single source (when one knows there are others) does not constitute a legitimate, statistically-accepted polling methodology. You can ignore that fact all you want, Newbie (and you are, apparently), but that “poll”…that “research”…is bullshit.

It isn’t necessarily the source that’s the problem (although you’re also ignoring the WSJ editorial board’s built-in bias, when at other times you’re more than happy to point out the bias of other sources). It’s the methodology and the ridiculously small sample that’s the problem.

Newbie,
How can you say that the Occupiers don’t represent average American viewpoints when the Bloomberg poll that interviews average americans does sync up with what the Occupiers believe (from Schoen’s poll);
Bloomberg;
“More than two-thirds of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, say wealthier people should pay more in taxes to bring down the budget deficit,and even larger numbers think Medicare and Social Security benefits should be left alone. ”

Schoen (on the Ocupiars);
“By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor.”

“Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.”
( i.e. Medicare/veterans benefits, pell grants and Social Security)

I love it when Anonster, Vern and Greg all speak FOR the Occupy folks: Here are a few salient points from the Occupy “demands” that prety much obliterate your position Anonster:

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

[You get paid whether you work or not, yeah, it is hard to understand how that demand could result in the group being portrayed as “a bunch of lazy unemployed people who just want handouts.]

Demand four: Free college education.

[An idealistic but nobel goal, but not really consistent with an environment in which we are having to deal with dwindling resources. It would be nice to have free college but 47% of the people are willing to pay the taxes to support those kind of programs.]

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

[Corporate Welfare is BAD, VERY BAD – except when we want to support a cause near and dear to us like alternative energy and then corporate welfare is GOOD, VERY GOOD – hypocricy at its best.]

Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

On top of these programs in which a lot is demanded for nothing in return there are also internally inconsistent provisions which demand on the one hand restoration of foreign tariffs while on the other hand eliminating immigration laws.

THAT IS WHAT THE MOVEMENT HAS PUBLISHED. You can try and recast it however you want, but everything that you say Anonster is simply you opinion – nothing more.

On demand 3: Geoff, what has the U.S. established as its target unemployment rate. Is it 0%? If not, is it our official policy that some people should be unemployed? (Answer: yes, and Marx explained why in writing about “unemployed, the reserve army of the.”)

On demand 4: “the 47%” pay taxes and fees to the government. Do not be a ninny. As for college: well, do we want our populace to be educated and competitive or not? Or do we want only the offspring of the wealthy, domestic and foreign, to be educated and competitive?

On demand 5: when government support of corporations is serving the public good, as when dealing with the energy supply emergency (and yes it is an emergency) rather than some stupid and unnecessary war, then it’s not “welfare.” But if you’d prefer the socialist approach of all such research being done by the government itself, let’s talk. (Personally, I’d nationalize the defense and pharmaceutical industries.)

2) we should spend more public money making sure that everyone has a free higher education at a time when our expenditures of public monies is threatening our economy; [and by the way none of the so called “taxes” the 47% pay, none of them go towards higher education];

3) corporate welfare is good, as long as you agree with the cause.

I notice that you didn’t bother to address demand 11. If I was on your side, I wouldn’t acknowledge that one either.

Newbie

Posted October 28, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Geoff said it best on demand 5 – Diamond ignores the vast oil and gas resources that exist under our own soil that would all but end our reliance on foreign energy supplies simply because he doesn’t support the cause. Now that’s a good argument.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Ge’off,

(1) I think that everyone should have a basic standard of living, including adequate food, shelter, and medical care, regardless of whether they are working or not — though I’m confident that we can come up with useful things for them to do. I think that this would save us money. (It certainly would when it comes to emergency room care.)

(2) “Everyone” is not going to seek a higher education, even if free. Some other countries do this, you know; you can check the results. What it would do, though, is prevent the decline in social mobility that we’re seeing now — and give people a greater stake in the society, which is declining for reasons that seem to perplex you. (And, really, you put scare quotes around the word “taxes”? Do you think a sales tax is a suggested donation or something?)

(3) No, corporate support by government isn’t “welfare,” but prudent investment. We want to stimulate markets that move our society in the directions we need to go. Most crony capitalism that you like, though, doesn’t do so — as with the financial companies, it just props up people who don’t do productive work (and, in fact, steal from the rest of us, although they’ve bought off enough of the government to make the stealing “legal.”) That IS “something for nothing.”

I responded to the paragraphs that started with the word “demand” followed by a number. “11” wasn’t among them. But before you slam debt forgiveness too hard — what do the “too big to fail” corporations demand?

I’m glad that you want to goad me into answering what I hadn’t — this suggests, if you have any courage at all, that you are willing to be goaded into response yourself. Unfortunately, I pointed out within the past few days that you had completely failed to respond to a large part of one of my comments. Can you find it yourself, so you can fix that, or do you need my help?

Newbers: I won’t try to convince you that you were wrong here because those resources aren’t economically accessible and would create enormous problems — such as with global warming, which for our collective enjoyment you should now feel free to deny — even if they were. Instead I’ll ask you this: what evidence, if any, could ever, even theoretically, convince me that you’re wrong and I’m right about the above. Is it just inconceivable, despite any potential evidence?

Newbie

Posted October 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Diamond, I have no desire to convince you that you’re wrong, because you would never admit it, even if you were. I just like that fact that your own comments reveal your hypocrisy on energy. Suddenly, it has to be your definition of “clean” energy, regardless of the technological advances that have made recovery of so-called “dirty” energy much more environmentally friendly, or the simple fact that even tree hugger scientists have admitted that the job-killing acts like AB 32 will have no appreciable impact on GHG emissions for now or the future.

“Most crony capitalism that you like, though, doesn’t do so — as with the financial companies, it just props up people who don’t do productive work (and, in fact, steal from the rest of us, although they’ve bought off enough of the government to make the stealing ‘legal.’) That IS ‘something for nothing.'”

Again, you make Geoff’s point for him since the green energy scam is the very definition of crony capitalism (or haven’t you heard of Solyndra?) And since Solyndra alone stole half a billion dollars from us (along with the countless other examples coming to light), you once again ignore damning evidence on your side simply because you support the cause.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 28, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Newbie, Newbie, Newbie:

“I just like that fact that your own comments reveal your hypocrisy on energy.”

I think that we should do what is in the best interest of future generations, which incorporates environmental concerns.

“Suddenly, it has to be your definition of “clean” energy, regardless of the technological advances that have made recovery of so-called “dirty” energy much more environmentally friendly.”

No — I can be convinced by the facts. I’m happy to review with you whatever technological advances you have in mind. If they stand up to scrutiny, I’ll concede it — but I’m confident that they won’t. We can start with fracking, if you’d like.

“or the simple fact that even tree hugger scientists have admitted that the job-killing acts like AB 32 will have no appreciable impact on GHG emissions for now or the future.”

I’m going to need a citation on that one.

“the green energy scam is the very definition of crony capitalism (or haven’t you heard of Solyndra?)”

Nope. There’s been a lot of good reporting on Solyndra (hint, not on Fox); you should read it. The basic problem is that the Chinese went heavily into the industry and the price that Solyndra could charge for its products fell through the floor, so they went bankrupt. Solyndra contributed heavily to the success of that new industry, but because of trade-related issues could not take advantage of it. (That problem also exists with the unregulated capitalism that you like — such as the bubble that created all sorts of fiber optic cable all over the place, built by companies that then went bankrupt.)

“And since Solyndra alone stole half a billion dollars from us”

No, they didn’t. They operated in good faith and went bankrupt due to changing market conditions.

“(along with the countless other examples coming to light)”

Take off your shoes and socks so that you can use your toes as well as your fingers.

“you once again ignore damning evidence on your side simply because you support the cause.”

You give me damning evidence and I’ll attend to it. But “damning” is the opposite of “damnable.”

Greg Diamond

Posted October 31, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Ge’off — and I use that name because it’s funny to tease you — of COURSE I know what you do. Your firm puts it on its website!

Geoffrey K. Willis is a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Natural Resources and Environmental Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County Office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Willis concentrates his practice on matters involving the California Environmental Quality Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; water rights and quality; the Endangered Species Act; wetlands regulation; the Clean Air Act; CERCLA investigation, remediation and litigation; the California Subdivision Map Act; and local zoning and land use requirements, environmental due diligence and audits.

Additionally, Geoffrey handles matters involving the use or reuse of real property — from the development of shopping centers, large conjunctive use projects, houses, golf courses, industrial parks and manufacturing complexes to regulatory compliance of ongoing businesses involving air, endangered species, water and wetlands permitting. Geoffrey has represented his clients’ interests before all of the counties in Southern California, many of the cities in California, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Federal Aviation Administration, the High Desert Air Pollution Control District, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, the California EPA, EPA Region IX, and a number of additional state and local governing bodies.

I may be wrong that your environmental law work is primarily defensive. It looks like it is more likely to be offensive.

And no, Geoff, it’s really not brain surgery. For one thing, brain surgery helps people. It is always easier to destroy than to build.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM

By the way, this CLE presentation sounds interesting:

“‘Drought Management in California – Much to Do with Nothing,’ CLE International (November 20, 2008)”

Geoff,
“Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.”

Funny how you interpret a living wage to include those not earning a wage, which is bullshit.

Most sane and compassionate people believe that someone who puts in a full day’s work should be able to live on the money they earn, not opulently, but definitely survive. That is NOT happening today, many low wage workers CAN NOT SURVIVE on the wages they earn from just one full time job. No slicing or dicing of facts, that is just plain, flat out WRONG.

“Demand four: Free college education.”

Can’t blame them, this is the norm in Europe and the US is hobbling our future economy by keeping higher education out of reach for many americans and by piling debt on our young people, thus ensuring the delay of typical middle class life that our consumer driven economy depends upon.

“Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.”

Yeah, how dare they want America to be competitive in the green energy field.

“Gauranteed living wage income regardless of employement.” Parsing that not too difficult sentence it means – we will pay people money whether or not they work or are employed at all. We would therefore be paying people whether or not they “put in a full days work” or not. I am not the one “intepreting” anything – the sentence speaks for itself.

“many low wage workers CAN NOT SURVIVE on the wages they earn from just one full time job.” Funny since the median person in the American Government’s defintion of “poverty” has one or two cars, one or two tvs, all of the modern appliances and an Xbox – not sure how you define survival. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

“Can’t blame them, this is the norm in Europe” – yeah, there is a stable economic system that we want to emulate. By the way, where is your data showing that the US is being hobble by higher education costs? Shouldn’t you be attacking the University systems for raising costs at 4-5 times the cost of living instead of claiming that those high prices should be paid by tas payers? By the way, what is really hobbling the American education system is the wonderful “no child left behind program that plays to the lowest common denominator thereby boring the pants off of anyone with a brain. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Problems-With-No-Child-Left-Behind-(NCLB)&id=1771817

“Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.” – So YOU , ANONSTER, get be the sole arbiter of when corporate welfare is doled out and when it is not. That doesn’t smack of special interests or cronyism at all (eye roll).

Geoff,
The phrase ” regardless of employement” obviously refers to TYPE of employment, your PURPOSEFUL misreading of it only points to your bias.

51% of American HOUSEHOLDS make under 50,000 dollars a year, 28% make under 25,000 dollars a year, they may have TV’s (cheap) but they are definitely struggling to survive. What I find so interesting is how someone who makes a good living, like yourself and KNOWS how hard it is to afford a “responsible” lifestyle (insurance, savings, college, etc.) and can look at those families who are barely able to afford the basics without carrying tremendous debt and yet want them to pay even more (in taxes). I am in that top 1% of incomes and I, for the life of me CAN NOT FIGURE OUT HOW THEY MAKE IT, in MY OPINION wanting those poor families to pay more so that the rich don’t have to is just, EVIL.

As to the Green Energy field it is accepted tax policy to try and encourage fledgling industries, that is unless of course, you are willing to cede that ENTIRE industry to the Chinese and Europe.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 28, 2011 at 12:12 PM

I would like to see Ge’off try to survive on even twice minimum wage. I’d like to see it tomorrow, ideally.

Newbie

Posted October 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM

“I would like to see Ge’off try to survive on even twice minimum wage. I’d like to see it tomorrow, ideally.”

Take from someone who has worked hard to earn a living. And that encapsulates the communistic/socalistic mindset that defines the Occupy movement that liberals on here laughably claim represent the average American.

And that in a nutshell is the Republican CANARD, if you work “hard” you make good money and if you don’t make good money it means that you must not work “hard”.
Watch any gardener or laborer, folks who REALLY “work hard” as opposed to guys who can sit on their fat asses and blog all day and compare their pay.
Many extremely hard working americans aren’t able to survive on the wages they earn at their FULL TIME JOBS (if they’re “lucky” enough to have a job) that’s why average americans are more sympathetic to the Occupier’s cause than the Tea Partier’s.

And Greg didn’t say he wanted to TAKE AWAY Geoff’s money either. He’d just like to see him try to live that way for a while so he knows what it’s like.

Newbie

Posted October 28, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I’m glad Anonster’s outright hatred and ignorance is on display for all to see. Please tell me Anonster where I said “if you work ‘hard’ you make good money and if you don’t make good money it means that you must not work ‘hard’.” Here’s a hint, you can’t because I didn’t say it (again, those pesky facts always get in the way of your comments.) I worked my way through college waiting tables while taking a full load (and only taking loans through law school since my race, gender, and apparently “rich” parents disqualified me from grants and other free money). By the way, I paid those student loans off timely, and without any loan forgiveness that Obama’s proposing so that the average graduate can have a whole $8 more per month in his or her pocket. So you can go on insulting with your lies, ignoring the real facts (again, the only evidence presented so far shows that the Occupiers don’t represent the average American – unless of course you think violent, socialist/communist, disrespectful, and lazy represents the average American today) if that what it takes to get you through the day.

anon

Posted October 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM

“Please tell me Anonster where I said “if you work ‘hard’ you make good money and if you don’t make good money it means that you must not work ‘hard’.” Here’s a hint, you can’t because I didn’t say it (again, those pesky facts always get in the way of your comments.) ”

You need to read more closely, Newbie.

Anonster didn’t say that you said that. He/she said that it is a part of Republican “messaging”. It’s a canard that is, if not literally spoken, often implied.

“… again, the only evidence presented so far shows that the Occupiers don’t represent the average American – unless of course you think violent, socialist/communist, disrespectful, and lazy represents the average American today) if that what it takes to get you through the day.”

You act like we don’t have two good representatives of the occupiers right here on the OJ, do Vern and Greg fit your description?
Maybe we should take a poll.

And hey, anonster says she’s in the top 1%, and she apparently sympathizes with our movement. Can you righties explain again, how this somehow makes her a big hypocrite? I still don’t get that one.

anon

Posted October 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Not to mention the folks all over the country who aren’t violent, socialist, disrespectful and lazy, and they may not be at the events, but they still support the movement wholeheartedly.

As I’ve suggested before, Geoff and Newbie’s dismissiveness has the stench of elitist condescension.

Greg Diamond

Posted October 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Newbie, “I’d like to see X” is an idiom. Maybe you can look it up.

I believe that Ge’off is does environmental law defense work. I did similar work in Manhattan, though primarily in construction litigation and some white collar defense. It’s not exactly brain surgery or coal mining.

Geoff Willis

Posted October 31, 2011 at 10:06 AM

You have no idea what I do Mr. Diamond (and I always find that when people retreat to school yard bullying tactics like calling me Ge’off, they are stinging from losses). My work is generally always unique and one of a kind and IS the legal equivalent of brain surgery, but then, you really don’t care about the truth, do you?

Let me be clear, I’m at the very bottom of that 1%, as I suspect Geoff is and it’s true that we pay taxes at the very highest rates, good incomes without all the write-offs of the truly rich and it can feel like we are “carrying” the country, but that is no excuse for denigrating and devaluing other americans contributions and their concerns.

What it should do is set off alarm bells, how is it that our income that certainly doesn’t make us “rich”, is so rare.

Those of us at the bottom of that 1% are living a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle, but we’re not on easy street and that’s a good indicator of how poorly wages have kept up with inflation.

Pretending that the occupiers are communists and want to take other people’s money is just a red-herring and excuse for not looking at their very real complaint which is that they are being shut out of the the middle class.

Geoff Willis

Posted October 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I wish you were the yada, yada girl from Seinfeld so that we didn’t have to hear the unsupported drivel.

Tomorrow they will publish everything worldwide what will influence your income.

You should notice that economy is influenced by speeches of idiots in the government not by the business.

It appears that in your case you would qualify for 1M Business loan.
Lets say you have bullet-prof business plan.
Ask yourself would you commit yourself to borrow 1M?
Ask yourself would a venture capitalist commit himself to invest 1M into your plan?

NO!

Why! There is no confidence in politicians and their bovine ideas.

That is all!

This economy needs confidence, knowing that when you wake tomorrow then you will not see president in the rose-garden screaming: “I need 700B or we are finished”.

There is dis-confidence bubble which must burst.

Will OCCUPATION help?… maybe indirectly as a catalytic force only.

But we talking about 20 years from now, next generation.

Look at last century main events happening on 20 years generational borderline:
1918 communist revolution
1938 WWII
1948 formation of the communist block (10 year exception due to war)
1968 Prague spring uprising
1988 Desolation of the communist block
2008 Obama start Communism in USA
2028 You can expect some substantial changes in the world
Nelson proclaimed the rainbow coalition: Vern, Greg, Francisco, Amber, Duane, and Rashad next world leaders.

Hilarious ! You people are argueing a fictitious list of “propsed demands”. That list was posted by “anonymous” on the Forum section of OWS website with the following disclaimer from the administrator:

“Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.”

Anonster, you’re absolutely right. We’re seeing more and more of this deliberate misrepresentation of the movement’s purpose by the usual rightwing dirty-tricks masters. We MUST define and clarify our purpose so universally that they CANNOT successfully lie about us. This is why organization is absolutely necessary, no matter how much we may like the idea of a purely “grassroots” movement.

gw great post i know anoster would come out on this she wants euorpe style gov in the u.s . newbie could not agree with you more these folks are the 99% the 99% crowd that wants gov to hand them a life . they interview a woman yesterday who said gov needs to take care of my kid so i can go out and get a job .= NO FATHER , the kid was 11 months and she has been out of work for a year .. why have a kid when you dont have a job . and i know this is just one person but im sure this crowd feels like this. its this the gov owes me = social justice obama im entitled crap . that has this country sinking . free college ed REALLY ANOSTER this is the norm in europe , guess what were not europe and who would pay for this = TAXPAYERS .

Hey, Grate Juan, I didn’t know that you were (presumably) pro-choice; nice! Or are presumably completely anti-sex? In that case, you’ll want to make sure that women have a decent enough standard of living that when some rich man comes knocking they can more easily say “no.”

“… a woman yesterday who said gov needs to take care of my kid so i can go out and get a job .= NO FATHER , the kid was 11 months and she has been out of work for a year .. why have a kid when you dont have a job .”

BASIC MATH
Baby= 11 months
Out of work =12 months
Pregnancy =9 months

11-12=-1+9=8

That means, Oh-so-stupid-one that the woman was 8 months pregnant when she lost her job, a little too late to “rethink”, unless you’re advocating forced abortion/adoptions based on means testing.

Those occupy folks who feel it is the governments job to do their thinking for them, I say those in Santa Ana should look at those people who have succeed in their personal goals of total government sub servants, those people living free, no rent, no food costs. No clothes or shelter costs, with a monthly stipend of a few hundred dollars to cover their beer and cigarettes.

OH ANOSTER = your so smart ,so your brainless thinking still thinks the gov should pay for her . go back to your tent and light up another one to clear your head . . well diamond this will probally surprise you . i am pro choice . no i would not want them to abort the baby . try every way possibel to keep it , and as far as rich man comes knocking they have these things called birth control .

I too am pro choice, You can’t stop the stupid destroying their own offspring. Even though I know that it is awful for a child to be torn apart in the womb. Most likely its mother is an idiot and therefore the child will be either abused or neglected. So as the bitch said, “The fit should have children the unfit should not”. This is were I agree with the stupid liberals, that their liberal base should not have children!

All people want is a fair shake. GW and new are lined up behind those in power, and such support is essential to keeping the influential in control. GW and new haven’t yet realized that the joke’s on them, of course–they’ll never be in the club. They may be allowed to park the Bentleys, though.

sd we dont like your socialism .. now diamond dont get my words twisted i said they should do EVERYTHING POSSIBEL . . michell is entitled to her thinking . i do think that abortion is bad . and if some one has one ITS ON THEIR MIND the whole time that they killed a life ..

(1) Do the occupy people know who are the wealthy or rich person and where they lives? The one’s who has unlawfully accumulated the “occupiers” monies and properties?

(2) The Irvine occupy people have more money and nicer property than the ones at the Santa Ana occupy. When are the Irvine occupy going to send to Santa Ana occupy their fair share? Should Santa Ana occupy send a bus full of people to Irvine to pick up tents, computers, money out of purses and wallets, and ¼ to 1/3 of the most expenses cars?